The confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some strange twists, but none quite as strange as complaints about a Supreme Court nominee for his “rich white male privilege.”

Having attended Georgetown Prep, Yale, and Harvard Law School, Justice Kavanaugh is indeed a fortunate man.

But is that really a bad thing? There was a time when Democrats cheered the privileged people of our society. Their pantheon of heroes includes Franklin Roosevelt (Groton, Harvard) and John F. Kennedy (Choate, Harvard), John Kerry (St. Paul’s, Yale—Skull and Bones), and Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale).

The grievance against white male privilege often is accompanied by a claim that the GOP is hostile to women and minorities. But there are inconsistencies.

When U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski announced her retirement, the 2016 Democratic primary election pitted U.S. Rep. Donna Edwards against U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Edwards, an African-American woman had a compelling up-by-the-bootstraps life story while Van Hollen, the son of diplomats, lived overseas, attended the right schools, and was the epitome of privilege.

Yet the Maryland Democratic establishment embraced the privileged white man over the African-American woman. They argued that his qualifications trumped diversity.

The same election brought demands for racial justice from civil rights activist Carl Snowden. Although he was silent on Edwards’ historic campaign, he thundered about our 400-year history without an African-American woman on the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court and demanded Gov. Larry Hogan right this historic wrong.

Snowden led rallies, organized meetings, and wrote columns about it —something he never did during eight years when Gov. Martin O’Malley failed to make such an appointment.

Now that Elizabeth Morris, an African-American woman, has been elevated to the Circuit Court bench, Snowden is trying to claim the credit (The Capital, Oct. 22). It might be gracious of him to publicly thank the man who actually made the appointment — Hogan.

As we approach this November’s election, “privilege” is the new wedge issue. Steuart Pittman is challenging County Executive Steve Schuh — a friend of mine since 2004 — and a contrast is being made between the simple farmer and the wealthy financier.

Schuh’s father was the golf pro at Crofton Country Club and his mother took on an extra job to get him into the Severn School. He graduated from Dartmouth, got his MBA from Harvard, and made millions in finance, becoming a managing director at Alex Brown before leaving that world for elected office.

Pittman lives on 550-acre Dodon Farm, which has been in his family for eight generations. It was a former plantation that built its fortune on slavery, tobacco, and horses. While that is history and not who Pittman is today, inheriting the fruit of antebellum privilege is pretty special.

Schuh tells the story about when he was new to Alex Brown, the managing director shared his philosophy of life: learn, earn, and return. Spend the first third of your life learning, the next third earning, and the rest of your life giving back to the community.

Pittman seems steeped in the gentry’s ethos of noblesse oblige — the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged.

Most of us want to be successful, like Schuh. And most of us want to leave a legacy to our descendants, like Pittman’s family.

Should I be jealous if Schuh parlayed a great education into wealth and a beautiful home on Gibson Island? Should I be jealous if Pittman inherited an estate and trust fund, plays polo and rescues race horses?

Today, we have two decent, white men of privilege who believe in public service. We should celebrate that and not allow ourselves to be manipulated by demagoguery about sex, race, and “privilege” as yet another cynical get-out-the-vote tactic. But we will deserve better politics only when we demand it.